Globalization and de-globalization in nanotechnology research: the role of China

Abstract

The share of nanotechnology publications involving authors from more than one country more than doubled in the 1990s, but then fell again until 2004, before recovering somewhat during the latter years of the decade. Meanwhile, the share of nanotechnology papers involving at least one Chinese author increased substantially over the last two decades. Papers involving Chinese authors are far less likely to be internationally co-authored than papers involving authors from other countries. Nonetheless, this appears to be changing as Chinese nanotechnology research becomes more advanced. An arithmetic decomposition confirms that China’s growing share of such research accounts, in large part, for the observed stagnation of international collaboration. Thus two aspects of the globalization of science can work in opposing directions: diffusion to initially less scientifically advanced countries can depress international collaboration rates, while at the same time scientific advances in such countries can reverse this trend. We find that the growth of China’s scientific community explains some, but not all of the dynamics of China’s international collaboration rate. We therefore provide an institutional account of these dynamics, drawing on Stichweh’s [Social Science information 35(2):327–340, 1996] original paper on international scientific collaboration, which, in examining the interrelated development of national and international scientific networks, predicts a transitional phase during which science becomes a more national enterprise, followed by a phase marked by accelerating international collaboration. Validating the application of this approach, we show that Stichweh’s predictions, based on European scientific communities in the 18th and 19th centuries, seem to apply to the Chinese scientific community in the 21st century.

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors are indebted to Cong Cao for his excellent comments on an early draft of this paper, and to Quinn McCreight and Aisa Villanueva for superb research assistance. All errors are our own. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES 0531184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of California at Santa Barbara Center for Nanotechnology in Society (www.cns.ucsb.edu).

Appendix

‘‘NANOPARTICLE* OR NANOTUB* OR NANOSTRUCTURE* OR NANOCOMPOSITE* OR NANOWIRE* OR NANOCRYSTAL* OR NANOFIBER* OR NANOFIBRE* OR NANOSPHERE* OR NANOROD* OR NANOTECHNOLOG* OR NANOCLUSTER* OR NANOCAPSULE* OR NANOMATERIAL* OR NANOFABRICAT* OR NANOPOR* OR NANOPARTICULATE* OR NANOPHASE OR NANOPOWDER* OR NANOLITHOGRAPHY OR NANO-PARTICLE* OR NANODEVICE*OR NANODOT* OR NANOINDENT* OR NANOLAYER* OR NANOSCIENCE OR NANOSIZE* OR NANOSCALE* OR ((NM OR NANOMETER* OR NANOMETRE*) AND (SURFACE* OR FILM* OR GRAIN* OR POWDER* OR SILICON OR DEPOSITIONOR LAYER* OR DEVICE* OR CLUSTER* OR CRYSTAL* OR MATERIAL* OR ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOP* OR TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOP* OR SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOP*)) OR QUANTUM DOT* OR QUANTUM WIRE* OR ((SELF-ASSEMBL* OR SELF-ORGANIZ*) AND (MONOLAYER* OR FILM* OR NANO*.

OR QUANTUM* OR LAYER* OR MULTILAYER* OR ARRAY*)) OR NANOELECTROSPRAY* OR COULOMB BLOCKADE* OR MOLECULAR WIRE*’’.